In the previous blogs, I explained how Muhammad Shahrour’s theory of limits – basically, that where the Qur’an sets limits, you cannot exceed them (tilka hudud Allahi fala ta'taduha). In some cases, you should not even get close to them (tilka hudud Allah fala taqribuha). However, you can move in between the limits (curvature).
He uses this theory to say that the Islamic Shari'a have boundaries/hudud but these are meant only to establish a general framework but within these boundaries, you are free to legislate laws that suits best the continuously changing circumstances of human life.
Now the issue is that Muhammad Shahrur is not directly dismissing history and tradition. He says that although previous jurists did not distinguish between verses of the Quran and narrations that express limits and those that are instructions, they cannot be blamed as they are articulating their own society’s understanding. But he does note that there is a misconception in his view about how the prophet worked during his life. Women’s rights were improved throughout his prophethood but the traditional mindset considers the end of his life to be the end of the improvement, whereas he considers the model of improvement to be the ongoing process that must be continued.
He uses the theory of limits with these understandings to tackle with the problem of polygamy. From the famous verse in surah Nisa (4:2-3), he notes two types of limits:
Firstly, quantitatively, the lower limit is 1 wife, and the upper limit is 4 wives.
Secondly, qualitatively, the new wives must be young widows (to protect their young children). His view is that after a first wife, any other wife can only be married if the individual can treat the widows’ children with justice and equality which is difficult. He notes, however, that this idea of looking after widows who have young children, is good, as it is an effective way to provide care for orphaned families.
Overall, his idea is like a football pitch, where he believes that the traditionalists are playing on the borders, whereas they should be playing within the main pitch!
Note that his view removes the need for ijma’ as there is no need for certainty in his understanding. Note also that limits can be achieved from the Sunnah. Also, a question that is often posed to the cases in law that are not in the revealed texts – he makes it clear that there are no limits here e.g. new taxes – minimum limit of 0, and maximum limit would be the maximum the society can bear…
On the side, it is useful to see his understanding of the difference between Islam and Iman: The basis of his philosophical view is his different understanding of general religion (al-islam) and on particular religion (al-iman). He considers the former to be an eternal ideal practiced throughout history and based on scientific reason and good moral action (e.g. Prophet Ibrahim was a Muslim); and the latter to be a religion (what we call the actions of Islam) brought into existence in one particular time but contingent on that time. He characterises Salafi islam to be the antithesis of the ethical true islam, as it only considers the ritualistic iman to be the entirety of the religion.
Overall though, his thoughts are an interesting point of view – he has of course been attacked by the establishment and many responses have been written to his work. This must be understood and in this blog, I am not trying to say he is right or wrong, just giving an insight into his views…
In the next blog, we will move onto another progressive thinker!!
Sources:
“The Quran, Morality and Critical Reason” by Muhammad Shahrur
http://www.islam-and-muslims.com/Quran-Morality-Critical-Reason.pdf
Islamic Legal Theories by Wael Hallaq
Wednesday 26 January 2011
Wednesday 19 January 2011
Progressive Muslims - Muhammad Shahrur (2)
We are continuing to discuss Muhammad Shahrur and have explained briefly the idea of curvature and straightness, which are important to understand the Theory of Limits, which will be the focus of this blog…
Basically, the divine decree (in the Book and the Sunna) sets a Lower (minimum that must be adhered to) and Upper Limit (maximum required by law) for all human actions…once these limits are breached, penalties are warranted, proportional to the size of the violation.
There are 6 types of limits:
1. Lower limit by itself e.g. marrying one’s mother, …etc. – these are limits, such that if you do not do them, then any other marriage is possible.
2. Upper limit by itself e.g. cut off the hands of thieves (5:38). The penalty here is the upper limit that cannot be exceeded but the penalty might be mitigated depending on the society…the mujtahids have to make the decision as to which type deserves cutting the hand e.g. stealing intelligence might have another verse apply to it e.g. 5:33 (those…”who make war upon God and His messenger…should be killed or crucified or…”) – again that is the upper limit.
3. Lower and upper limit conjoined e.g. inheritance. Shahrur believes that the upper limit of a man is twice that of a woman; and the lower limit of a woman is half that of a man – independent of maintenance costs…etc.. But the exact amount depends on the society…etc. This example shows the freedom of movement (curvature) in between the limits (straightness). He says that if we just rely on the interpretation 100s of years ago, we would be losing the curvature of islam.
4. Lower and upper limit together – he cites only one example: 24:2 (“the adulterer and the adulteress, scourge each one of them with a hundred lashes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to God…”). Here, both the upper and lower limits are at one point i.e. 100 lashes. This is because God insists that the adulteres should not be pitied, signifying the punishment should not be mitigated.
5. Curvature in between the lower and upper limit but touches neither e.g. sexual relations between men and women – starts with the lower limit where the sexes are not to touch other; curvature in between that and the upper limit where they come close to committing adultery
6. Curvature between a positive upper limit and a negative lower limit e.g. interest. He considers the lower limit to be taking care of the poor, who cannot be forced to pay what they cannot afford (he uses 9:60 and 2:276 and narrations to help his point of view); but those who can pay, that is separate, and the upper limit is based on 3:130 “O you who believe, devour not usury, doubling and quadrupling [the sum lent]” i.e. the maximum limit of the interest paid is 100% of the principal independent of the duration (due to 2:280).
In the next blog, I will look at other applications of this theory e.g. to polygamy, as well as some of his other views…
Sources:
“The Quran, Morality and Critical Reason” by Muhammad Shahrur
http://www.islam-and-muslims.com/Quran-Morality-Critical-Reason.pdf
Islamic Legal Theories by Wael Hallaq
Basically, the divine decree (in the Book and the Sunna) sets a Lower (minimum that must be adhered to) and Upper Limit (maximum required by law) for all human actions…once these limits are breached, penalties are warranted, proportional to the size of the violation.
There are 6 types of limits:
1. Lower limit by itself e.g. marrying one’s mother, …etc. – these are limits, such that if you do not do them, then any other marriage is possible.
2. Upper limit by itself e.g. cut off the hands of thieves (5:38). The penalty here is the upper limit that cannot be exceeded but the penalty might be mitigated depending on the society…the mujtahids have to make the decision as to which type deserves cutting the hand e.g. stealing intelligence might have another verse apply to it e.g. 5:33 (those…”who make war upon God and His messenger…should be killed or crucified or…”) – again that is the upper limit.
3. Lower and upper limit conjoined e.g. inheritance. Shahrur believes that the upper limit of a man is twice that of a woman; and the lower limit of a woman is half that of a man – independent of maintenance costs…etc.. But the exact amount depends on the society…etc. This example shows the freedom of movement (curvature) in between the limits (straightness). He says that if we just rely on the interpretation 100s of years ago, we would be losing the curvature of islam.
4. Lower and upper limit together – he cites only one example: 24:2 (“the adulterer and the adulteress, scourge each one of them with a hundred lashes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to God…”). Here, both the upper and lower limits are at one point i.e. 100 lashes. This is because God insists that the adulteres should not be pitied, signifying the punishment should not be mitigated.
5. Curvature in between the lower and upper limit but touches neither e.g. sexual relations between men and women – starts with the lower limit where the sexes are not to touch other; curvature in between that and the upper limit where they come close to committing adultery
6. Curvature between a positive upper limit and a negative lower limit e.g. interest. He considers the lower limit to be taking care of the poor, who cannot be forced to pay what they cannot afford (he uses 9:60 and 2:276 and narrations to help his point of view); but those who can pay, that is separate, and the upper limit is based on 3:130 “O you who believe, devour not usury, doubling and quadrupling [the sum lent]” i.e. the maximum limit of the interest paid is 100% of the principal independent of the duration (due to 2:280).
In the next blog, I will look at other applications of this theory e.g. to polygamy, as well as some of his other views…
Sources:
“The Quran, Morality and Critical Reason” by Muhammad Shahrur
http://www.islam-and-muslims.com/Quran-Morality-Critical-Reason.pdf
Islamic Legal Theories by Wael Hallaq
Thursday 13 January 2011
Progressive Muslims - Muhammad Shahrur
Having discussed the views of the various different ways of thinking amongst some of the major traditional scholars of our era, we now embark on a brief overview of the major progressive thinkers.
Before we start, remember that the previous blogs were based on the final law itself i.e. the implicit thinking of the scholars can be inferred from how they reached their conclusions. The thinkers we are going to discuss now, are at a much earlier and less mature stage in their development i.e. they are at the theoretical stage, explaining their theory because they believe that the general traditional approach either needs to change given the changing circumstances, or just does not make sense at all.
I personally have not reached a conclusion on what I believe but inshaAllah this process will help us all understand our religion more deeply. I am going to start with one of the authors that has made me think the most – Muhammad Shahrur. Although some of his works are fantastic, I am going to start by explaining the most famous of his theories.
He uses the verse: “indeed We have revealed the Remembrance [the Qur’an] and We are surely its preservers” to (in contrast to most) say that the Qur’an is as much ours as it was the Qur’an of the previous generations. Therefore, given that each interpretation of each age depends on the particular reality they live in, we have as much right to interpret the Qur’an that reflects our time i.e. we are better placed to understand the Qur’an for our purposes, than earlier generations [so previous commentaries are not binding on us]. In fact, he goes as far as to say we are better placed to interpret the Qur’an given the fact we have developed in philosophy, sciences…etc.
Now given his right to interpret, he makes an important distinction between the Qur’an and Kitab (the title of one his famous works), as well as the difference between Prophet and Rasul. I will skip over these, and move onto two opposite terms that are the pillars of his “Theory of Limits”:
1. Hanifiyya (curvature) – more a deviation from a straight path
2. Mustaqim (straightness)
(he uses many verses of the Qur’an to explain this)
He says that both of these attributes are integral to the message and in particular, curvature is natural and intrinsic to human nature – we see that through physics e.g. motion even of electrons or galaxies are in curves. But at the same time, you need straightness to maintain a legal order in the “non-straight” society (with different cultures, needs…etc.). Nowhere in the Qur'an you can find a single verse which recommends us to pray God to bestow on us “hanifiyya” even though it is praised about Prophet Ibrahim. We don’t need to pray for hanifiyya as it is natural, but we do need to pray for straightness (as it says in Surah Fateha – “guide us/keep us on the straight path”), which is indispensable but not natural.
So the question that we have is: what is the form of straightness that God revealed to complement its curvature? Here Shahrur puts forward the crux of his theory – the Theory of limits (hudud). He says that man moves in curvature within these limits which represent straightness. In the next blog, I will explain this theory in more detail.
Sources:
“The Quran, Morality and Critical Reason” by Muhammad Shahrur
http://www.islam-and-muslims.com/Quran-Morality-Critical-Reason.pdf
Islamic Legal Theories by Wael Hallaq
Before we start, remember that the previous blogs were based on the final law itself i.e. the implicit thinking of the scholars can be inferred from how they reached their conclusions. The thinkers we are going to discuss now, are at a much earlier and less mature stage in their development i.e. they are at the theoretical stage, explaining their theory because they believe that the general traditional approach either needs to change given the changing circumstances, or just does not make sense at all.
I personally have not reached a conclusion on what I believe but inshaAllah this process will help us all understand our religion more deeply. I am going to start with one of the authors that has made me think the most – Muhammad Shahrur. Although some of his works are fantastic, I am going to start by explaining the most famous of his theories.
He uses the verse: “indeed We have revealed the Remembrance [the Qur’an] and We are surely its preservers” to (in contrast to most) say that the Qur’an is as much ours as it was the Qur’an of the previous generations. Therefore, given that each interpretation of each age depends on the particular reality they live in, we have as much right to interpret the Qur’an that reflects our time i.e. we are better placed to understand the Qur’an for our purposes, than earlier generations [so previous commentaries are not binding on us]. In fact, he goes as far as to say we are better placed to interpret the Qur’an given the fact we have developed in philosophy, sciences…etc.
Now given his right to interpret, he makes an important distinction between the Qur’an and Kitab (the title of one his famous works), as well as the difference between Prophet and Rasul. I will skip over these, and move onto two opposite terms that are the pillars of his “Theory of Limits”:
1. Hanifiyya (curvature) – more a deviation from a straight path
2. Mustaqim (straightness)
(he uses many verses of the Qur’an to explain this)
He says that both of these attributes are integral to the message and in particular, curvature is natural and intrinsic to human nature – we see that through physics e.g. motion even of electrons or galaxies are in curves. But at the same time, you need straightness to maintain a legal order in the “non-straight” society (with different cultures, needs…etc.). Nowhere in the Qur'an you can find a single verse which recommends us to pray God to bestow on us “hanifiyya” even though it is praised about Prophet Ibrahim. We don’t need to pray for hanifiyya as it is natural, but we do need to pray for straightness (as it says in Surah Fateha – “guide us/keep us on the straight path”), which is indispensable but not natural.
So the question that we have is: what is the form of straightness that God revealed to complement its curvature? Here Shahrur puts forward the crux of his theory – the Theory of limits (hudud). He says that man moves in curvature within these limits which represent straightness. In the next blog, I will explain this theory in more detail.
Sources:
“The Quran, Morality and Critical Reason” by Muhammad Shahrur
http://www.islam-and-muslims.com/Quran-Morality-Critical-Reason.pdf
Islamic Legal Theories by Wael Hallaq
Wednesday 5 January 2011
Progressive Muslims - Introduction
Following a request, I have decided to devote the next series of blogs onto what I term as “progressive” Muslims. There are always issues with terminology:
- some say that the term “liberal” should be used – but others dislike that term due to the connotation of the person being more lax with Islam, which is not the case here
- others prefer the term “reformist” or “revisionist” – but others dislike the term as it implies a change or reform akin to that of the Christians, which is not necessarily something that people like!
- others prefer the term “modernist” but this implies there is a different Islam in the modern age
The term that seems to work best is to call adherents of this “new” view, as “progressive Muslims”. The positive of this terminology, is that it is not taking a view on Islam but just Muslims; it is also talking about progression, which was exactly what the Prophet (SAW) did during his life. The main negative is that it might imply that those who do not subscribe to these points of view, are “regressive” or not “progressive”. However, overall, I think that this term works best (and is actually the title of a book edited by Omid Safi – “Progressive Muslims”) and it is what I will use throughout the next few blogs…
Now the questions that we are going to try and look into are:
1. What is this Islam that “progressive Muslims” consider to be the true Islam?
2. Why does there need to be a change?
3. Is there a strong grounding/methodology that provides a consistent applicable foundation to all issues or is it just bit-part
Given that (as far as I’m aware at least) there is little available which deals with this area of work in this way, I will try and just summarise the views of some of the big thinkers in these fields…after which we can try and build them all back again to answer these questions…
The thinkers that seem to be worth exploring are:
1. General:
a. Abdulkarim Soroush (I know he is massively controversial and I apologise for this but in many works by orientalists/non-Muslims, he is seen as one of the biggest thinkers in the field and is sometimes discussed before anyone else. Given that I have read some of his works, and met him, he seems to be worth discussing)
b. Fazlur Rahman
c. Muhammad Shahrur
d. Khaled Abu el-Fadl
e. Maybe Arkoun and Ebrahim Moosa
f. Would be nice to have stuff on Muhammad Iqbal, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Abduh, Ali Abd al-Razaq, Shah Wali Allah but I have not read much on them so contributions would be welcome!
2. Women-specific:
a. Fatima Mernissi
b. Amina Wadud
c. Kecia Ali
d. Leila Ahmed
e. Asma Barlas
It is important to note that I am not agreeing with them but just explaining their views/ methodology, so that we can then get these together and understand what is trying to be done, why and how…and what the missing steps/critical questions are.
Please do forward this blog to other people/add them to the list…
- some say that the term “liberal” should be used – but others dislike that term due to the connotation of the person being more lax with Islam, which is not the case here
- others prefer the term “reformist” or “revisionist” – but others dislike the term as it implies a change or reform akin to that of the Christians, which is not necessarily something that people like!
- others prefer the term “modernist” but this implies there is a different Islam in the modern age
The term that seems to work best is to call adherents of this “new” view, as “progressive Muslims”. The positive of this terminology, is that it is not taking a view on Islam but just Muslims; it is also talking about progression, which was exactly what the Prophet (SAW) did during his life. The main negative is that it might imply that those who do not subscribe to these points of view, are “regressive” or not “progressive”. However, overall, I think that this term works best (and is actually the title of a book edited by Omid Safi – “Progressive Muslims”) and it is what I will use throughout the next few blogs…
Now the questions that we are going to try and look into are:
1. What is this Islam that “progressive Muslims” consider to be the true Islam?
2. Why does there need to be a change?
3. Is there a strong grounding/methodology that provides a consistent applicable foundation to all issues or is it just bit-part
Given that (as far as I’m aware at least) there is little available which deals with this area of work in this way, I will try and just summarise the views of some of the big thinkers in these fields…after which we can try and build them all back again to answer these questions…
The thinkers that seem to be worth exploring are:
1. General:
a. Abdulkarim Soroush (I know he is massively controversial and I apologise for this but in many works by orientalists/non-Muslims, he is seen as one of the biggest thinkers in the field and is sometimes discussed before anyone else. Given that I have read some of his works, and met him, he seems to be worth discussing)
b. Fazlur Rahman
c. Muhammad Shahrur
d. Khaled Abu el-Fadl
e. Maybe Arkoun and Ebrahim Moosa
f. Would be nice to have stuff on Muhammad Iqbal, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Abduh, Ali Abd al-Razaq, Shah Wali Allah but I have not read much on them so contributions would be welcome!
2. Women-specific:
a. Fatima Mernissi
b. Amina Wadud
c. Kecia Ali
d. Leila Ahmed
e. Asma Barlas
It is important to note that I am not agreeing with them but just explaining their views/ methodology, so that we can then get these together and understand what is trying to be done, why and how…and what the missing steps/critical questions are.
Please do forward this blog to other people/add them to the list…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)